Skip to main content

About your Search

20120901
20120930
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 54 (some duplicates have been removed)
long war we launched after 9/11 has been ended in iraq. and all of those variables factor into decisions about how we mark this day as americans. but also how our leaders or our would be leaders mark it. how we commemorate 9/11 is a work in progress. we saw today a decision by the white house and the obama campaign to have vice president joe biden mark the day in a way that was not political. it was just about remembering the people who were lost that day and commemorating the sacrifices people have made in this country because of 9/11. while both sides in the presidential campaign suspended their negative ads for the day out of respect for the anniversary, there's no ban on campaigning today. there's no rule about what you can and cannot do. mitt romney gave a speech today before the national guard association in reno, nevada, and at times it sounded like his normal stump speech. he did go out of his way to attack president obama for defense cuts that are part of the sequester deal. which incidentally, are cuts that paul ryan voted for in congress. that's the kind of thin
was all about iraq. >> at odds with the openful picture described by the president. mr. bush was challenged during an intview with fox news abo last spring's mission accolishppnc t "ubr lln >> would you do it again? >> you mean have the sign up there? >> no, no, go in there if the flight jacket? >> absolutely. >> you would? >> i'm saying to the troops on this carrier and elsewhere, thanks for serving america. absolutely. >>or sorry today noticed since that speech, more than 900 soldiers have died in iraq. >> so that was this date in the campaign in 2004. this date in the campaign in 2008, even though we were right in theiddle of the meltdown of the financial sector, still at the center of the campaign in eejohnccain and barack obama, which was this date four years ago, the focus was the war. in fact, both wars. >> do you, senator mccain, much has been said about the lessons of vietnam. what do you see as the lessons of iraq? >> i think the lessons of iraq are very clear that you cannot have a failed strategy. thanks to this great general david pa tray yous, they are succeedin
today noticed since that speech, more than 900 soldiers have died in iraq. >> so that was this date in the campaign in 2004. this date in the campaign in 2008, even though we were right in the middle of the meltdown of the financial sector, still at the center of the campaign in 2008, at the first debate between john mccain and barack obama, which was this date four years ago, the focus was the war. in fact, both wars. >> do you, senator mccain, much has been said about the lessons of vietnam. what do you see as the lessons of iraq? >> i think the lessons of iraq are very clear that you cannot have a failed strategy. thanks to this great general david pa trm pa tray yous, they succeeding and winning in iraq. >> whether we should have gone into the war in the first place. six years ago i stood up and opposed this war. we hadn't finished the job in afghanistan. we hadn't caught bin laden. we hadn't put al qaeda to rest. and as a consequence, i thought that it was going to be a distraction. now, senator mccain and president bush had a very different judgment. >> so that was this date,
in america for anything, it's for a bad reason. when they were flowing into iraq to martyr themselves trying to kill american troops in iraq, al qaeda documents seized by the u.s. army in iraq showed the little town of derna in libya sent more volunteers to die in iraq in 2006 and 2007 than any other place in the entire arab world. libya, per capita, as a country, sent more fighters to iraq than any other country, but it was specifically derna, that town, that sent the highest number of fighters. the most. full stop. and in 2008 the man who would become our ambassador, christopher stevens, he went to derna to assess the state of militancy and anti-americanism there. .and his cable back to washington actually used the bruce willis movie "diehard" as an analysis for understanding how intense the local attitudes were there about jihad. once the uprising against moammar gadhafi was under way, cnn reported this june that al qaeda central, the part that used to be headed by bin laden, al qaeda central dispatched a top operator from the tribal areas in pakistan to go to derna, to go to that part of
and went to iraq. so president obamaad to put a plan in place and a timetable to get it done. so it may not be as fast as we woulall ke, t the ct the cost of this war, in terms of our human treasure, the most important part, our young people, the casualties to their lives and to their physical well-beingnd their mental -- it's all physical, mental or not. so, yeah, i do think that this is taking to us a place where we should really understand that war, as a resolution of conflict, is an obsolete idea. and we should take the debate to a bigger place, a bigger place. i'll never get over the fact that presideustooks into war on a false premise, that he knew was false, that his administration knew was false, for a different agenda, and look how long we stayed in iraq. >> whether or not it ends up becoming an issue in the presidential race, is this a matteror congress to decide, in terms of when we leave, befo the electorer esidt's call? >> well, it's a combination. because when we won in '06, one of the big issues was ending the war in iraq. and we went to see the president and we said, we'
detroit should go bankrupt, you're going to hear about ending the war in iraq, he's going to say that thing about every american getting their fair shot and playing by the rules. if you're a fan, a fan enough to go to a speech like this, you likely know what you're going to hear in broad strokes. today, today on the campaign trail, there was this moment in ohio where the crowd totally thought that president obama was going somewhere that he was not actually going. they started to audibly react as if he was talking about something that they pretty clearly really wanted him to talk about. but he was not going where they thought he was. listen. >> now, there was one person at governor romney's convention last week who wasn't entirely on script. no, no -- >> no, no. the crowd is sort of half booing and half starting to applaud. and a lillal excitement that president obama is about to talk about the off skrift guy from last week, right? he's going to talk about this clint eastwood thing, but that's not what the president is about to do at all. behold an ortorical letdown in ohio. >> t
is when then-president george w. bush ordered the u.s.-led invasion of iraq, march 2003. it was also the month when it was ordered that the flag-draped coffins of american service members killed abroad could not be photographed when those coffins got back to the united states. that change in policy under george w. bush was a source of anger and controversy. it is why coffins were sometimes used in anti-iraq war protests to visually represent those real caskets of americans killed in the war that the bush administration would not allow the country to see. the bush administration banned the media from showing those dignified transfer ceremonies as the invasion of iraq started in 2003. and they kept the policy in place throughout george w. bush's time in office. as the country waged two of the longest wars in our history. it was not until the new president replaced george w. bush that the ban was rescinded. on thursday, february 26th, 2009, just five weeks after president barack obama was inaugurated, the defense department lifted the ban and one week after the ban was lifted, the follo
, they were fighting that war alongside a second war in iraq. two of the longest wars in american history fought at the same time, by a population of troops that makes up less than 1% of the american population. think about that. we have put an incredible burden on a proportionately tiny sliver of our population. and they did not get to those wars on their own. they didn't start those wars. the government sent them to do that work, in our name, right? a grateful nation, and all that. well, now americans coming home from those wars have an unemployment rate that is 35% higher than the national rate of unemployment. everybody's having a hard time in this job market, right? but veterans coming home from these wars have been at war. they have been doing things at their job for their deployment that employers may not understand on a resume. kandahar and baghdad don't exactly easily compare to the other addresses that employers are seeing on people's application for work. so the unemployment rate for vets is significantly higher, 35% higher than it is for the rest of the country. but that disad
of the united states now is because he was against the iraq war from the start. as a state senator he spoke out against the invasion of iraq saying he was not against all war, but he was against that war. he was never against the afghanistan war, though. when barack obama became president, in part because of that early clear stance against iraq, he quickly made clear that he would keep his commitment to end the war in iraq. and he made clear that the war in afghanistan would grow. at the end of his first year in office, president obama announced a surge of tens of thousands of troops into afghanistan, putting more american there than george w. bush ever did. the president insisted that the surge into afghanistan would not last forever. he said the surge in troop numbers had previously over by roughly now, the end of september, 2012. now a little ahead of schedule, before the end of the month, the pentagon has announced that the surge into afghanistan is over. there had been as many as 100,000 americans on the ground in afghanistan. now it is down to 68,000 which, frankly, is still a huge number
it was tragic to leave iraq, and then he said it was fine. he said we should have intervened in libya sooner. then he ran down a hallway to run away from the reporters who were asking questions. then he said, the intervention was too aggressive. then he said the world was a better place because the intervention succeeded. talk about being for it before you were against it. >> what a difference eight years makes. john kerry, the democratic presidential nominee in 2004, derided by the republicans that year as the for it before he was against it guy who couldn't be trusted to take over foreign policy from george w. bush. amazing as it sounds that republicans ran on foreign policy in the era of george w. bush, they certainly did. but now in the post-george w. bush era, republicans can do no such thing. yes, they are still using the military for a prop. they unveiled their vice presidential nominee by having him literally run out from a battleship as if he had just been in there swabbing the decks or something when they happened to hear his name called, i guess i better get out there. there was n
reasons barack obama is president of the united states right now is because he was against the iraq war from the start. as a stat senator he spoke out against the invasion saying he was not against all war, he was against that war. he was never against the war in afghanistan, though. he quickly made clear he would end the war in iraq and he made clear that the war in afghanistan would grow. he announced a surge of tens of thousands of troops into afghanistan putting more americans there than george w. bush ever did. but the president insisted that would not last forever. he said that had to be over by roughly now. by the end of september, 2012. so now, a little ahead of schedule, the pentagon has announced that the surge into afghanistan is over. there have been as many as 100,000 americans in afghanistan it is now down to 68 thousand which frankly is still a huge number. especially when you consider how little political attention those 68,000 americans get. the war in afghanistan isn't an issue mostly because of the one of the two sides did not want to talk about it. it didn't come up
that's what got us into this trouble both overseas with the war in iraq and also with the economy. and they are not going for it anymore. the republic no longer believes that the way to help middle class and low-income families is to give more money to the rich. so i thought that mitt romney would pivot to the middle. he decided not to do that. >> i feel like the country republicans people in the middle and on the left want a republican party that's essentially giving a good fight. so we can have a big hashed out discussion about how to fix our problems. i'll be talking more about that later in the show about something that's been left out of the campaign. but i think even the left is rooting for the republican party to get its act together. >> because we don't want one party. we want two viable parties. >> we want to benefit from somebody who is right winning a real debate. we're a long way off. thank you for being here. >>> florida voters, i have something to tell you about your particular role in the election this year. in order to vote this year, you're going to have to read a
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 54 (some duplicates have been removed)